NotPoliticallyCorrect

Home » 2015 (Page 2)

Yearly Archives: 2015

Advertisements

IQ defines culture culture doesn’t define IQ

2500 words

People seem to be confused when it comes to IQ and culture. IQ is what determines the culture, the culture does not determine IQ

The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study: A Follow-Up of IQ Test Performance at Adolescence

Adopting parents tested when children were 7 and 17 120 115 — — —

Non adopted, with two white biological parents 116 109 3.0 64 69

Adopted, with two white biological parents 118 106 2.8 54 59

Adopted, with one white and one black biological parent 110 99 2.2 40 53

Adopted, with Asian or indigenous American parents 101 96 — — —

Adopted, with two black biological parents 95 89 2.1 36 42

The first column is age 7 IQ. Second is age 17 IQ. Third is age 17 GPA. Fourth is age 17 class rank(percentile) Fifth is age 17 school aptitude(percentile.

Levin and Lynn (1994) then disputed Weinberg et al’s conclusion with a hereditarian alternative. That the average IQ and school achievement scores of the black children directly reflected their amount of African ancestry. At both age 7 and 17, the adopted children with 2 black parents had lower average IQs and worse school achievement tests than those with one black parent and one white parent. So right here, in the MTAS, it shows that mixed-race people DO score better than just blacks, which is attributed to their white ancestry. Weinberg et al responds to their claims with this:

Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr (1994) responded to Levin (1994) and Lynn (1994) with further regression analyses that indicated the children’s preadoptive experience was confounded with racial ancestry, and so an unambiguous interpretation of the results was not possible. [pg 259]

THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY

Why people attempt to deny these truths is beyond me. It’s clear there are cognitive, as well as behavioral differences between races, but the egalitarians attempt to make it out to be a 100 percent environment cause, which is a ridiculous statement to make.

What this tells me is that obviously, there are differences between the races. These were children adopted by upper-middle-class white families in Minnesota. Therefore negating any leftist argument of socioeconomics and broken homes or whatever other excuses they want to come up with.

The adopting parents of 12 of the interracial children wrongly believed that their adopted children had two black parents. The average IQ of these 12 children was not significantly different from the scores of the 56 interracial children correctly classified by their adoptive parents as having one black and one white parent.

Now, this doesn’t say which parent is which race. But, let’s assume that the mother is white. As seen at the end of the study, white mothers and black fathers produce generally intelligent kids. Is it the genes from the mother giving the intelligence? Is it that white women are better caretakers for children then African-American women? I believe it is the intelligence factor from the white woman. We have tons of anecdotes where half-breeds are generally intelligent and have good success in life. Is this because of the white mother with her genes? My guess is, yes. As I said, IQ is what determines the culture, the culture does not determine IQ

The Bell Curve

IQ scores have high predictive validity for individual differences in school achievement.

IQ scores have predictive validity for adult occupational status, even when variables such as education and family background have been statistically controlled.

There is little evidence to show that childhood diet influences intelligence except in cases of severe malnutrition.

The Bell Curve is hotly debated, but IMO it is debated because they know the authors were on to something and it would have destroyed the narrative that we are all the same, just different colors. People get shunned all the time.

Like Dr. James Watson. A great man. One of the greatest scientists in of this century is shunned. He had to sell his Nobel Prize. Why? People are scared of the truth. They know that their views of egalitarianism were about to be shattered, so let’s shun the man who brings these “radical views.”

The argument of socioeconomic status is the cause for the negros low IQ has been disproven time and time again. IQ is what determines the culture, the culture does not determine IQ. Do you think if Europeans and Asians were to have the same IQ as Africans, which is 70, that we would be living in this society we are in today?

The typical leftist response to IQ tests is that the negro doesn’t know anything on the test. That they are “white IQ tests” therefore making the negro fail by default as the white man made the test to prove his superiority. But if that’s the case, why do Asians score higher?

I look at the advancements of Africans over time. Pretty much the same throughout history. Not really anything. No wheel, boat, or written language.

For instance, Africans have longer limbs, can sprint for longer distances and have higher stamina. This works out with what they had to do in Sub-Saharan Africa. They had to chase food, chuck spears etc. For the most part, African climate stayed the same pretty much all year round. They didn’t have to plan ahead. Could this be the reason that so many negros are so impulsive?

Then what would have become Europeans migrated north, they had the elements to contend with. They had to plan ahead. They had to be strategic with their food as to not be wasteful. Also, body hair came as an advantage to help keep them warm. Also, Europeans have medium length limbs.

Asians (Mongoloids) had to contend with the cold. They have shorter limbs as there is less surface area, so it’d be easier for them to get warm. Their eyes are that way from fat deposits to help keep them warm.

Europeans are closer to Neanderthals than Africans are: Ancient DNA in humans is due to species interbreeding after man left Africa

Last week, scientists said that modern Europeans share a number of genes involved in the build-up of certain types of fat with Neanderthals. The same genes were not seen in people from Asia and Africa, however. It is thought that ancient genes might have helped Europeans adapt better to colder climates, giving them an evolutionary advantage. This is the first time we have seen differences in lipid concentrations between populations,’ said evolutionary biologist Philipp Khaitovich the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany and the CAS-MPG Partner Institute for Computational Biology in Shanghai, China. ‘How our brains are built differently of lipids might be due to Neanderthal DNA.’

Ancient DNA shows earliest European genomes weathered the Ice Age: Neanderthal interbreeding clues and a mystery human lineage

The study also uncovers a more accurate timescale for when humans and Neanderthals interbred, and finds evidence for an early contact between the European hunter-gatherers and those in the Middle East — who would later develop agriculture and disperse into Europe about 8,000 years ago, transforming the European gene pool. Scientists now believe Eurasians separated into at least three populations earlier than 36,000 years ago: Western Eurasians, East Asians and a mystery third lineage, all of whose descendants would develop the unique features of most non-African peoples — but not before some interbreeding with Neanderthals took place.

Why Am I Neanderthal?

Everyone living outside of Africa today has a small amount of Neanderthal in them, carried as a living relic of these ancient encounters. A team of scientists comparing the full genomes of the two species concluded that most Europeans and Asians have between 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA. Indigenous sub-Saharan Africans have no Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not migrate through Eurasia.

Now, how does all of this say that low IQ dictates culture and not vice versa? The fact that some people say that culture dictates IQ makes me believe that they don’t understand evolution.

Look at Europeans and Asians. They had to weather extremely cold climates. They had to plan ahead. They generally had to be on their toes all the time because of the harsh climates of Europe and Asia.

Now let’s get to the negro. They stayed in one place. Their climate allowed for basically the same food to grow year round. They didn’t have to plan ahead. Sound familiar? In my opinion, the negro is this way for 2 reasons.

Surprise! 20 Percent of Neanderthal Genome Lives On in Modern Humans, Scientists Find Two new studies suggest that the contribution from Neanderthal DNA was vital.

Both teams found that non-African genomes have large continuous “deserts” that are totally devoid of Neanderthal DNA. These regions include genes such as FOXP2, which is involved in motor coordination and could play an important role in human language and speech.

2 No extremes in climate.

I truly believe that how Europeans and Asians had to weather such extremes in the places they lived brought us to where we are today. They had to plan ahead. The negro didn’t. This is the reason for their low IQ. They were never challenged, no Neanderthal DNA and a steady hardly ever changing climate. It is theorized that when the Europeans went north into what is now Europe, they mated with Neanderthals. The old Hominids were violent. They killed off the Neanderthals.

Now let’s think about today. Blacks have higher testosterone than every race. High testosterone is linked to aggressive behavior. Also, think about how blacks always say they didn’t do it or some variation thereof. It is because they lack abstract thought. So along with the lack abstract thought, high testosterone, low IQ, all of the cited sources about no Neanderthal DNA, their lack of being in a cold climate, among other things is the reason for the way the negro is. The low IQ drives this.

They didn’t have the high IQ that leads to the innovations that Europeans and Asians had. This can be seen even today, with how the African lives their daily life.

Now, with all this being said, does IQ determine the culture or the culture determine IQ?

My point to this essay is that IQ determines culture. Culture does not determine IQ. I see some people saying that negros are dumb because of the environment they live in. This is so far from the truth. Also that their socioeconomic status prevents them from this and that. That their schools are bad. Well, we have one common denominator: negros.

They say the schools are bad. Their area is bad. Well again, one common denominator: negros. We have mountains of evidence, both scientific and anecdotal, that say that negros are less intelligent than Europeans and Asians. Why this is still denied is beyond me.

Yes, we all know that “good blacks” exist. But, they are statistical anomalies. In any big group, you will have outliers. Where are all of these Africans with their major innovations bringing them out of the rut their in? That’s because their IQ doesn’t allow them to think in ways that Europeans and Asians do.

I hope that some of these points have changed some minds on the matter. Negros can not live in first world societies. Hell, they can’t even make their own and they live in ours when it clearly doesn’t work out? The negro is not fit to live in America. IQ is the reason why. These reasons are why they can’t live in first world countries.

IQ is what determines the culture, the culture does not determine IQ

Low IQs are Africa’s curse, says lecturer

Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist, is now accused of reviving the politics of eugenics by publishing the research which concludes that low IQ levels, rather than poverty and disease, are the reason why life expectancy is low and infant mortality high. His paper, published in the British Journal of Health Psychology, compares IQ scores with indicators of ill health in 126 countries and claims that nations at the top of the ill health league also have the lowest intelligence ratings.

Having examined the effects of economic development and income inequality on health, he was ‘surprised’ to find that IQ had a much more important impact, he said. ‘Poverty, lack of sanitation, clean water, education and healthcare do not increase health and longevity, and nor does economic development.’

Kanazawa declined to comment on either War on Want or Atkinson’s allegations about reviving eugenics because, he said, other academics had come up with the national IQ scores that underpinned his analysis of 126 countries. In the paper he cites Ethiopia’s national IQ of 63, the world’s lowest, and the fact that men and women are only expected to live until their mid-40s as an example of his finding that intelligence is the main determinant of someone’s health.

Having examined the effects of economic development and income inequality on health, he was ‘surprised’ to find that IQ had a much more important impact, he said. ‘Poverty, lack of sanitation, clean water, education and healthcare do not increase health and longevity, and nor does economic development.’

The LSE declined to offer any opinion on Kanazawa’s conclusions but defended his right to publish controversial research. A spokeswoman said: ‘This is academic research by Dr Kanazawa based on empirical data and published in a peer-reviewed journal. People may agree or disagree with his findings and are at liberty to voice their opinions to him. The school does not take any institutional view on the work of individual academics.’

Kate Raworth, a senior researcher with Oxfam, said it was ‘ridiculous’ for Kanazawa to blame ill health on low IQ and ‘very irresponsible’ to reach such conclusions using questionable and ‘fragile’ international data on national IQ levels.

Rumit Shah, chairman of the LSE student union’s 52-member Kenyan Society, said lack of education was probably one reason why many Kenyans die young. Aids, tuberculosis and malaria were key factors too.

Just attacks Kanazawa and not saying anything to his findings. That person is right, not everyone in Kenya has an IQ at 72, half fall below it.

Mainstream Science on Intelligence: An Editorial With 52 Signatories, History, and Bibliography

Richard Lynn renewed his old tabulation of IQ score in a 2010 paper. The East Asians have the highest score. Singaporeans having a Chinese majority is the highest scoring country at 108. China, Korea and Japan 105, 106, 105 respectively. East Asian regions like Hong Kong is 108 and Taiwan is 105. Nevertheless, the IQ of China Shanghai is estimated to be 112, the highest among all, given that Shanghai students rank number one in academic abilities, in the world.

Western Europeans have an IQ of around 100. The IQ of a lot of black African countries ranges from 60-90.

India is 82, a very low figure. Malaysia is 92 and Indonesia is 87.

IQ correlate nicely with wealth of nations. The higher the IQ score, the more advance a nation in development. Low IQ nations often found themselves in civil war, rampant corruption or anarchy.

http://veritas-lux.blogspot.com/2013/09/racial-realism-2-iq-cock-length-and.html

IQs of African Nations

Science Breaks the Taboo of Race: Dr. David Duke

Intentional homicides (per 100,000 people)

See the correlation between violence and IQ in the countries with high murder rates?

In conclusion, I’m sure that I made a great case for IQ defining culture. It’s clear, especially from all of the links I have provided in this piece, that IQ matters much more than culture, and that culture is directly related to IQ.

Advertisements

IQ, socioeconomic status, success in life and criminality

1700 words

Lower IQ people can’t work in the same jobs, or do the jobs they can get better than lower IQ people. This is a huge part of the reason why blacks talk about ‘oppression’ because they are too dumb to see that they are the reason for their downfall so they blame it on imaginary forces such as ‘white privilege’ or ‘white supremacy’. They don’t even know that 1) whites are the majority in this country and, therefore, have a majority of the jobs and 2) lower IQ people don’t succeed as much or do as better than higher IQ people.

To begin, IQ, along with height are 2 of the most heritable things for humans. IQ is malleable in children, seeing as the heritability of IQ is 22 percent at age 5, 40 percent at age 7, and 82 percent at age 18. So IQ is malleable in children when they are younger so you can change their IQ through the environment, but as they age to adulthood, to quote Jensen, their genes ‘turn on’ and fall to the average for that racial grouping. So in effect, the environment does nothing for IQ in adulthood as it did in childhood. Some people say that IQ is 100 percent environmental, and that is a really stupid position to hold as, through sub-tests and seeing the g loading in them, we can see that the most g loaded tests are highly heritable. People who say that IQ is 100 percent environmental are intellectually dishonest and are true ideologues.

Let’s talk about IQ in relation to job potential. Job performance can be measured in a lot of different ways. Sometimes through how many units per day per hour someone produces, or structured ratings by supervisors or peers or sometimes by analyses of a work sample. With that being said, the correlation between IQ and job performance is .4, with the correlation being higher on for more complex jobs. (pg 72)  It is known that the higher someone’s IQ is, the better they perform at jobs and are better than people who have a lower IQ at that same job. They may be able to memorize more things, be more productive in the workplace or just have better motivation due to being more intelligent and knowing that his skills are being applied correctly in the workplace.

With the above being said, can you think of how that relates to blacks and how they cry oppression that whites hold them down because of ‘white supremacy’? It’s completely nonsensical and sounds completely baseless to anyone with a brain. Now that we know that IQ is highly heritable and is modestly correlated with job success, let’s see what it looks like in regards to getting a job and job applications.

According to The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein, IQ tests are a better predictor of job success than compared to a job interview. They state that, while it may be surprising to many, IQ tests are a better predictor of job performance than any other single measure. This conclusion is drawn from a meta-analysis on the different predictors of job performance which are: (pg 80 and 81):

Predictor                                                                                Validity Predicting Job Performance

Cognitive test score .53
Biographical data .37
Reference checks .26
Education .22
Interview .14
College Grades .11
Interest .10
Age -.01

Source: Hunter and Hunter 1984

As you can see, the job interviews correlation is extremely low. That means that the relationship between the two are not highly correlated, meaning the relationship between them don’t have a good relationship. The cognitive test score (IQ test) is correlated at .53 with job performance. In social sciences, that is a pretty high correlation. A .6 correlation in social sciences is said to be a very high correlation. Think about how blacks act and then think about how they may act at a job interview. With that correlation, .14, being so low, it’s safe to say that they will not get a job based on that job interview. Even education has an extremely low correlation. Yes, your IQ is a great predictor of college success, but according to the table, which was found in a study of 23,000 civilian employees at 3 levels of mental ability (high, medium and low) using supervisor ratings as the measure of performance which also extended out to job tenures of 20 years or more, we see that the correlations that we believe are a good predictor of job success don’t have as high of correlations as we thought they did. We see that cognitive test scores are the best predictor of job success from that table, so with that being said, is it really ‘white supremacy’ or ‘white privilege’ being used to hold down blacks?

Now let’s get on to success in life. I pretty much covered that above, but let’s get more in-depth. According to Linda Gottfredson, the correlation for scores that are averaged has a correlation with job performance at .90. (pg 106) IQ is correlated with increased income, increased wealth, economic growth, livability in a US state, cooperation and life expectancy. IQ correlates negatively with socially undesirable outcomes such as crime, welfare dependence, and illegitimacy. Why people deny IQ having anything to do in life is crazy. All you need to do is look at your local down and out people and see how they act and how that comes to their ability to find and keep a job. You don’t even need to see these correlations and information to see this in real life, all you have to do is observe your surroundings and draw your own conclusions and if you are intellectual, you will see these things and draw the correct conclusions on the matter that don’t involve ‘white supremacy’ or ‘white privilege’.

Now let’s get to crime and how it is correlated with IQ. According to Arthur Jensen in The g FACTOR The Science of Mental Ability, IQ has a well-established correlation between a number of social variables such as poverty, crime, illegitimacy and chronic welfare status. He also states that verbal test scores are somewhat highly correlated with delinquent and criminal behavior than are nonverbal (spatial) suggests that other cognitive factors, in addition to g are most likely responsible for the correlation of IQ with the most common forms of antisocial behavior. (pg 294) Lower IQ is also known to be correlated with a lack of abstract thought and thinking into the future. Thinking of blacks, with an average IQ of 85 (Rushton and Jensen say that some data says 78) we can see how criminality is correlated with low IQ and how  blacks have, on average the lowest IQ and commit the most crimes per capita in America. People may point to that data and say “Whites commit the most crime in America”, and while true, they don’t think of per capita rates as well as the population percentage in the country, which is 63 percent white and 13 percent black. That is what really matters.

The average IQ for a criminal is 84 in America right by the average IQ for blacks in America which is 85. That can not be a coincidence. We see how much crime they commit and how it has an effect on American life in regards to how the media portrays them as Saints in a crusade against ‘white supremacy’ and ‘white privilege’. We see that the problem in the black community isn’t whites “holding them down”, it’s due to their own biology, which they don’t have the average IQ to grasp that it’s them and not the people they blame for their downfalls.

Skin color is also correlated at .92 with IQ in a study of IQ and the countries populations. Skin color was used as a proxy for ancestry and the correlation was .92 for skin color and the rho was .91.

A correlation is a mutual relationship between 2 things. So if the correlation was 1.00, then that would mean there is a relationship between the 2 things being tested. With that number, .92 being so close to the perfect correlation of 1.00, it’s safe to say, that the darker someone’s skin is, the less intelligent they are. You may point me to some outliers, but that is perfectly explained by the relationship not having a perfect correlation. If the correlation were perfect, then that would mean every dark-skinned person’s IQ would be low, but that’s not the case so you get some people who don’t fall into that category.

Rho is a population coefficient or the population Pearson correlation coefficient. It’s a measure of a linear correlation (dependence) between two variables, X and Y, giving a value of +1 and -1 inclusive where 1 is a total positive correlation, 0 is no correlation, and −1 is a total negative correlation. It is widely used in the sciences as a measure of the degree of linear dependence between two variables.

In Rushton’s last paper before his death, he wrote that melanin has been linked to behaviors in species. He conceptualized skin color as a multi-generational adaptation to differences in climate over the past 70,000 years. He proposed life history theory (formerly known as r K selection theory) to explain the covariation found between human and non-human pigmentation and variables such as birth rate, infant mortality, longevity, the rate of HIV/AIDs and violent crime.

So we can see that the darker someone’s skin is, the more likely all of the above variables are to be seen in those with darker skin pigmentation. We can see that skin color DOES matter and anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.

So the people harping on about how skin color doesn’t matter, it does and as you can see through this whole post, with IQ being THE best predictor of success in life, we can see how skin color matters as well.

In conclusion, what white SJWs and blacks say in regards to blacks being held down by the rich white men in America is clearly hogwash as I have shown to you in this thread. The black community will not succeed until segregation is put back into place. During segregation, they actually “succeeded” in their own lives because there was a clear separation of whites and blacks. Today, the single mother rate in the black community is 72 percent. 50 years ago it was 24 percent and in the 20s, it was 5 percent. The downfall of the black community is not white people.

“Differences in brain structure development may explain test score gap for poor children” Maybe not….

1500 words

Summary: They would have to explain why whites in poorer families score higher than blacks in all other income brackets except blacks in families making over 200,000 dollars per year, which even then blacks only score 3 points higher in the 200,000 dollar plus per year income bracket. They say that frontal and temporal lobes are smaller in poorer children, which whites have bigger frontal and temporal lobes on average as well as having more activity in the frontal lobes, which is thought to be the seat of intelligence. Blacks having smaller brains than whites on average explains the size differences between the differences in the different parts of the brain mentioned.

Low-income children had atypical structural brain development and lower standardized test scores, with as much as an estimated 20 percent in the achievement gap explained by development lags in the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain, according to an article published online by JAMA Pediatrics.

If true, only 20 percent of the achievement gap affected by poverty. I doubt it seeing as poor whites in families making less than 20,000 dollars a year still have 180 points over blacks in the same income bracket and blacks in families making more than 200,000 dollars per year have a 981 score, only 3 points higher than whites in families making less than 20,000 dollars per year. Whites in families making less than 20,000 dollars per year still outperform all negro families in all other income brackets except in negro families making over 200,000 dollars per year by only 3 points. Not even worth talking about.

20 percent of the achievement gap is apparently explained by developmental lags in the front and temporal lobes of the brain. Blacks have a smaller PFC (prefrontal cortex) which may explain it.

Socioeconomic disparities in school readiness and academic performance are well documented but little is known about the mechanisms underlying the influence of poverty on children’s learning and achievement.

It’s well documented that even in poor whites and poor blacks, poor whites are still on average more intelligent and have higher standardized test scores than do blacks.

Seth D. Pollak, Ph.D., of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and colleagues analyzed magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of 389 typically developing children and adolescents ages 4 to 22 with complete sociodemographic and neuroimaging data. The authors measured children’s scores on cognitive and academic achievement tests and brain tissue, including gray matter of the total brain, frontal lobe, temporal lobe and hippocampus.

I wonder what the breakdown was. Will revise when the full paper comes out. Hippocampal differences are also explained by whites having larger brains than blacks as well as the other parts they state.

The authors found regional gray matter volumes in the brains of children below 150 percent of the federal poverty level to be 3 to 4 percentage points below the developmental norm, while the gap was larger at 8 to 10 percentage points for children below the federal poverty level. On average, children from low-income households scored four to seven points lower on standardized tests, according to the results. The authors estimate as much as 20 percent of the gap in test scores could be explained by developmental lags in the frontal and temporal lobes.

On frontal lobes from this Rushton paper decimating Gould’s garbage *Mismeasure of Man*, which also states they have smaller frontal lobes than whites:

“Bean also reported that the 103 Negro brains were less convoluted than were 49 White brains and that Whites had a proportionately larger genus to splenium ratio (front to back part of corpus callosum), implying that Whites may have more activity in the frontal lobes which were thought to be the seat of intelligence. Consider the following statistically significant comparisons (sexes combined) from recently conducted studies using the four techniques mentioned above. Using brain mass at autopsy, Ho et al. (1990) summarized data for 1,261 individuals. They reported a mean brain weight of 1,323 grams for White Americans and 1,223 grams for Black Americans. Using endocranial volume, Beals et al. (1984) analyzed about 20,000 skulls from around the world and found that East Asians, Europeans, and Africans averaged cranial volumes of 1,415, 1,362, and 1,268 cm3 respectively. Using external head measurements from a stratified random sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel, Rushton (1992) found that Asian Americans, European Americans, and African Americans averaged 1,416, 1,380, and 1,359 cm3, respectively. Using external head measures from tens of thousands of men and women from around the world collated by the International Labour Office, Rushton (1994) found that Asians, Europeans, and Africans averaged 1,308, 1,297, and 1,241 cm3, respectively. Finally, an MRI study in Britain found that people of African and of Caribbean background averaged a smaller brain volume than did those of European background (Harvey et al., 1994). Contrary to most purely environmental theories, racial differences in brain size show up early in life. Data from the U.S. National Collaborative Perinatal Project on 19,000 Black children and 17,000 White children showed that Black children had a smaller head perimeter at birth and, although Black children were born shorter in stature and lighter in weight than White children, by age 7 ‘catch-up growth’ led Black children to be larger in body size than White children. However, Blacks remained smaller in head perimeter (Broman et al., 1987). Further, head perimeter at birth, 1 year, 4 years, and 7 years correlated with IQ scores at age 7 in both Black and White children (r = 0.13 to 0.24).”

On temporal lobes, from the scientist that Rushton cited above:

“The size of the pole of the temporal lobe is less in the Negro than in the white, and less in the Negro female than in the Negro male…The shape of the pole of the temporal lobe is different in the two races, being slightly more slender in the Negro, and almost the same size in the two races antero-posteriorly. The differences are not only absolute but are also relative to the to the weight and size of the entire cerebral hemispheres.”

.”Development in these brain regions appears sensitive to the child’s environment and nurturance. These observations suggest that interventions aimed at improving children’s environments may also alter the link between childhood poverty and deficits in cognition and academic achievement,” the study concludes.

“Appears sensitive”. I doubt it. See the table on test scores and income above.

In a related editorial, Joan L. Luby, M.D., of the Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, writes: “Building on a well-established body of behavioral data and a smaller but expanding body of neuroimaging data, Hair et al provide even more powerful evidence of the tangible detrimental effects of growing up in poverty on brain development and related academic outcomes in childhood. … In developmental science and medicine, it is not often that aspects of a public health problem’s etiology and solution become clearly elucidated. It is even less common that feasible and cost-effective solutions to such problems are discovered and within reach. Based on this, scientific literature on the damaging effects of poverty on child brain development and the efficacy of early parenting interventions to support more optimal adaptive outcomes represent a rare roadmap to preserving and supporting our society’s most important legacy, the developing brain. This unassailable body of evidence taken as a whole is now actionable for public policy.”

I’m assuming they have never seen the SAT score gaps and how whites in families making less than 20,000 dollars a year score the same as blacks in families making over 200,000 dollars a year.

Source

It’s well-known that IQ is the best predictor of success in life. Blacks have a lower a lower average IQ, and smaller brains than whites and Asians which explains the achievement test score gaps. I would like to see a study that separates rich blacks, rich whites and poor blacks and poor whites with controls and see how they differ. I’m assuming it’ll be the same as the SAT score gaps which I have linked above.

The difference in brain size between blacks and whites perfectly describe what is being shown above. More blacks live in poverty because they have lower IQ. IQ is correlated with poverty, crime, illegitimacy, and chronic welfare status. G, or general intelligence, is highly correlated with most things in life. Excerpt from THE g FACTOR The Science of Mental Ability by Arthur Jensen:

The well-established correlation of IQ and similar cognitive measures with a number of social variables, such as poverty, crime, illegitimacy, and chronic welfare status, makes it almost a certainty that g itself is the major cognitive component in the relationship. However, I have not found a study that directly addresses the extent to which just g itself, rather than IQ or other highly gloaded measures, is related to social variables. The repeated finding that verbal test scores are somewhat more highly correlated with delinquent and criminal behavior than are nonverbal performance tests (generally loaded on the spatial factor) suggests that other cognitive factors in addition to g are probably responsible for the correlation of IQ with these most common forms of antisocial behavior. pg 294

In conclusion, they need to have studies that have poor whites and poor blacks, rich blacks and rich whites, rich whites and poor blacks, poor whites and rich blacks and controls to see what the differences really are, and we know there will be differences between the above-mentioned groups, and that poor whites still perform better academically than poor blacks.

Dailymail: Mixed-race relationships are making us taller and smarter: Children born to genetically diverse parents are more intelligent than their ancestors.

1600 words

The Dailymail came out with an article today about how mixed race relationships are making us taller and smarter. It also says that children born to genetically diverse parents are more diverse. While this is true, they fail to realize certain other things when it comes to mixed race relationships/mixed race kids.

A study has found humans today are taller and more intelligent than their ancestors, and the cause has been linked to the rise in more genetically diverse populations.

Wrong. People are taller and more intelligent today because of better nutrition. That has NO link to genetically diverse populations. Of course they’re more intelligent than their ancestors. Back in 1945, only 70 years ago, in America the average white IQ was 85. We are smarter than out ancestors back then, is it genetic diversity? No, it’s not.

Miscegenation lowers IQ in the white but highers it for the black. It’s a net loss for whites to miscegenate but a net gain for a lower race to miscegenate with whites. People don’t realize the host of problems that come with being mixed-race which I will explain later in this post.

And those born to parents from different races and cultures also tend to have higher levels of education.

I don’t know where they got their information from so I can’t quite comment on this part of the article. I’m assuming it’s in the paper, but I can only find the abstract, not the PDF. With some anecdotal examples, I know some mixed race black and whites with a white mother, they both were high achievers in high-school as well as in sports. The brother plays for the NFL while the sister plays pro women’s basketball in Europe. That’s just one anecdote, though, I live in a small rich town so of course we would have a few outliers. I wouldn’t use that as a basis to say emphatically that yes, mixed race kids do tend to have higher levels of education. We know that Asians have a higher level of education slightly more than whites who have a level of education way more than blacks. As said in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, mixed black and white kids have a better prenatal environment.

According to Rushton and Jensen in THIRTY YEARS OF RESEARCH ON RACE DIFFERENCES IN COGNITIVE ABILITY, at the end of the study the researchers came to the conclusion that in their breakdowns of the children at age 17, that the mother’s IQ was the single best predictor of the adopted child’s IQ when all other variables are accounted for, but then go on to say:

“the social environment maintains a dominant role in determining the average IQ level of Black and interracial children and that both social and genetic variables contribute to individual variations among them” [pg 259]

Levin and Lynn (1994) then disputed Weinberg et al’s conclusion with a hereditarian alternative. That the average IQ and school achievement scores of the black children directly reflected their amount of African ancestry. At both age 7 and 17, the adopted children with 2 black parents had lower average IQs and worse school achievement tests than those with one black parent and one white parent. So right here, in the MTAS, it shows that mixed-race people DO score better than just blacks, which is attributed to their white ancestry. Weinberg et al responds to their claims with this:

Waldman, Weinberg, and Scarr (1994) responded to Levin (1994) and Lynn (1994) with further regression analyses that indicated the children’s preadoptive experience was confounded with racial ancestry, and so an unambiguous interpretation of the results was not possible. [pg 259]

So we have evidence of mixed race children being better with IQ as well as school achievement tests than full black children. That’s all I’ll say on this matter for now until this full paper comes out.

Where few instances of this occur in a person’s genes, it indicated greater genetic diversity in their heritage and the two sides of their family are unlikely to be distantly related.

Sure, that’s right. But I don’t believe it’s worth the downsides to doing it.

The team found that greater genetic diversity is linked to increased height. It is also associated with better cognitive skills, as well as higher levels of education.

Funnily enough, they just described mono-racial children. As I said earlier, miscegenation lowers IQ, so along with that, it would lower education levels as well.

The only traits they found to be affected by genetic diversity are height and the ability to think quickly.

Yes. “Height” doesn’t really have to do with genetic diversity. Intelligence is negatively affected, if it’s not a white mother. White mother’s have a better prenatal environment than minority mother’s which leads to a higher IQ, as well as the white mother’s IQ being one of the best tells for a child as I said earlier in the piece. “Ability to think quickly” is directly linked to cognitive ability.

However, genetic diversity had no effect on factors such as high blood pressure or cholesterol levels, which affect a person’s chances of developing heart disease, diabetes and other complex conditions.

Wrong. Let’s take a mixed race black and white. Blacks have a higher propensity to have hypertension (elevated blood pressure), diabetes and heart disease. That’ll obviously be passed on to a mixed race kid.

The findings suggest that over time, evolution is favouring people with increased stature and sharper thinking skills but does not impact on their propensity for developing a serious illness.

But it’s not mixed race people who this is talking about, it’s mono-racial people. Talking about the propensity for developing serious illness, it’s true that mixed race people are more heterozygous than non-mixed, but the small boost to disease immunity isn’t worth the slew of health effects.

Source

In Brazil, there’s evidence that ancestry is becoming independent from skin color due to so much mixing. Rio de Janeiro is one of the most dangerous cities in the world with its murder rate. The article, of course, doesn’t mention that, nor does it mention this.

For years now, the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro has made just about every short list for the world’s most violent and dangerous cities. Plagued by violent gun crime, assassinations and drug-trafficking, nearly 50,000 people have died of crime-related violence in Rio between 1978 and 2000.

The city’s crime problem was put on display once again this year for the entire world to see during the annual Carnaval celebration in Rio. Despite the deployment of nearly 10,000 police officers, the festivities were still marred by unusally high instances of robbery, assault and violence. Crime has been an embarrassment for Rio, placing the city’s bid to host the 2016 Summer Olympics in jeopardy.  Source

Let’s get to some health problems that plague mixed race kids, which along with for instance the dangers of so much mixing as seen in places like Rio De Janerio, that this article didn’t mention.

Mixedrace children suffer from more health problems

A study on Black-White mixes in agreement found that ”When it comes to engaging in risky/anti-social adolescent behavior, however, mixed race adolescents are stark outliers compared to both blacks and whites.” This holds true despite being raised in similar environments to mono-racial children.

The more people of different backgrounds who produce offspring = the more types that are harder to match. Multiracial patients have uncommon profiles and since there can be many possible racial and ethnic combinations in multiracial societies, finding a match can still be extremely difficult.

If you become ill with a blood cancer or other disease that requires a stem cell transplant, here’s an uncomfortable fact: Your race matters. Diversity is a strength in much of life, [citation needed!] but it’s a curse when finding a stem cell donor match.

Why things like this weren’t put into the article and only one side was shown, the “good side” of mixing races, beats me. Oh, yea, they have an agenda they’re pushing and want all of us to believe that there are no racial differences.

It’s funny. Far leftists will adamantly say that race doesn’t exist or IQ isn’t real or that IQ tests are biased, yet when things come out that are “positive” for minorities, these same people who were saying so much that those things don’t exist, they all of a sudden start to say things like that. I thought race doesn’t exist, why would they point to examples like this? Things like that boggle my mind how you can say somethings like that so much but then switch up your tune when the opposite is shown to be proven. We need to recognize racial differences.

Without doing so, we will lose our country. I hope we realize this soon before it’s too late and we lost the land we call home. I have hope though that a paradigm shift is coming soon and it will be a rude awakening to those cultural Marxists. The lies they spread in the name of “equality” and “egalitarianism” are simply lies to any intelligent person willing to educate themselves and always ask questions no matter what they’re told. Everyone should always ask questions. That’s how you learn and how you to not become like the mindless drones who just repeat like a parrot what they’re taught.

Always ask questions, especially about issues such as this. The fact that the author of this article didn’t even put one mention of the negatives of being mixed race shows that there is an ideological bias behind the piece and that they don’t want you to know any more than what they’re telling you.

The “Blank Slate”

1700 words

I see a lot of people talking about how there’s not such thing as certain behavior for different races and how we basically, without saying these words, are “blank slates”. People recognize physical differences between races, but not behavioral and cognitive ones? If you say to someone that peoples descended from West Africa have a certain gene, which 70 percent of them have, that give them fast twitch muscle fibers, which fire quickly but tire faster which allows them to win the 100 meter dash and reign over it in the Olympics, no one will call you a racist. A white man has won the World’s Strongest man every year from present day since 1974. Whites and Asians have slow twitch muscle fibers which allow them to be better in strength sports than African descended peoples. Here are the differences between the 2.

Type I fibers are different than type IIb fibers for many reasons. You can think of them as opposites. Type I is for long endurance activities while type IIb is for short fast bursts. Type I fibers are highly oxidative and are not likely to hypertrophy as much. Type IIb fibers are highly gycolytic and tend to hypertrophy more than type I fibers. Type I fibers are also known as red fibers due to their abundant supply of blood. Type IIb fibers have little blood causing them to be white in appearance.    source

With that being said, why do people accept physical differences, such as those listed above, and not cognitive and behavioral differences? Why do people believe that “we are all the same” and that we are “blank slates” that are to be molded by our environment when that’s simply not true?

We get lied to from a very early age that we are all the same and that the differences between us only come down to environment, meaning the environment you’re raised in and grow up in, and not talking about the real reason, which is the type of environment that your ancestors evolved in for tens of thousands of years. They deny it because it goes against their liberal narrative of egalitarianism, which is basically a religion to the left. But, if that’s the case, then why do they push forward literal racist programs, such as Affirmative Action, if we are all the same and malleable to our environments? Why not put blacks and other “misfortuned” groups into high SES homes where they can get the correct environment they need to be successful and get high IQ, so they can be successful as IQ is one of the best descriptors for success and outcomes in life? It’s been tried already. It didn’t work.

In 1976, a study was conducted called the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study where they took children of different races who were adopted into different families and tested their IQs at age 7 and again at age 17. A follow-up study was published in 1992. What was found, was that IQs of transracially adopted children didn’t differ at all from children raised by their biological parents in the same area.

According to Dr. David Duke in his book My Awakening: A Path to Racial Understanding, he says that the authors waited about 4 years to publish these findings. They were most likely scared of the backlash they were going to get when they released these findings, which, to be frank, is ridiculous. Why should we walk on egg shells when we have a good study that shows these differences? As said in the study, blacks raised in white families hardly did any better than blacks raised in black families. If the differences supposedly were environmental in the way they say it is, how come blacks raised in rich white families didn’t reach the IQ of whites if “IQ is malleable by the immediate environment”? Because the differences are genetic.

The heritability of IQ is between .75 (as said by the APA) and .90. I like to say .85. So if the heritability is that high, then only a few points of the B-W IQ gap can be explained by environment, with the lion’s share being attributed to genetics.

People may try to point to lead lowering IQ, well, for that to be the case they would have to test the IQ of all racial groups and then test the levels of lead in each subject, which have not been done yet. That throws that out the window.

People may also tout other studies, such as the Eyferth study, which supposedly says a “100 percent environmental cause” for the B-W IQ gap, which is preposterous. First, the mothers were white, which according to the MTRA, white women and black fathers have generally higher IQ children. This is attributed to prenatal factors. One of the single best predictors of IQ is the mother’s IQ. The soldiers in the study were also pre-screened for IQ, which is another flaw in the study. Three percent of white applicants failed compared to 30 percent of black applicants. They also didn’t retest the children again at age adulthood, as did the MTAS.

Another one people like to use is the Tizard study which studies young black, white and mixed-race children in a nursery setting. They were given tests to determine cognitive abilities. The white and black children both had IQs at 102.6 and 106.3 respectively. They also did not test again at adulthood.

Another is the Moore study, which tested 23 black adopted children and 23 black children adopted by middle-class black families. Their findings indicated that blacks adopted to black families scored at 104 compared to the blacks adopted by white families who scored at 117. People may point to this and say “Well, they didn’t differ in their environment and not their genes, so therefore the B-W IQ gap is 100 percent environmental.” Ridiculous. As with the other 2 studies, they were not tested again at adulthood. To say that any of these 3 studies mentioned above prove a 100 percent environmental cause is intellectually dishonest.

Egalitarians love pointing to these studies saying that blacks grow up in bad neighborhoods and don’t get the same things that whites growing up in poor neighborhoods do. Again, ridiculous. It’s just pure wishful thinking by egalitarians to point to these studies to say that there the gap is 100 percent environmental. As I said earlier, it technically is, but not in the way egalitarians think it is. They think we stopped evolving at the neck and that everyone is the same both cognitively and behaviorally which is ridiculous.

 

There is also what’s known as the “Flynn Effect” (should be the Lynn-Flynn Effect) in which IQ gains have consistently occurred over the decades egalitarians use this data to say that IQ tests test something not genetic in nature

Let’s say Flynn is right. The average black now is as intelligent as the average white in 1945. That’s supposed to show that the race difference in IQ is environmentally caused because there hasn’t been that much genetic change in the white population and the IQ has allegedly gone up 15 points. So, you can have a 15 point difference created by just an environmental change, no one knows why. Some think better nutrition or malnourished brain, etc. That’s also a fallacy. Just because a change in one group over time is due to an environmental change, doesn’t mean, or even make it probable, that a difference between 2 groups at the same time is due to an environmental change. The Flynn Effect make’s that highly unlikely and here’s why.

The Flynn Effect, assuming it’s real, has been acting completely uniformly in every population. Any country you ask, the rate of increase is 3 per decade. That means it’s an environmental factor that affects whites and blacks the same way as well as the whole world. And as a result of this uniform environmental factor, you have a difference in IQ that’s being preserved. That would suggest that the response on the parts of blacks and whites is due to some non-environment factors, a genetic factor, which is making the difference in IQ remain constant as the Flynn Effect goes into effect.

What makes it even more unlikely, in the last 60 years, their environments have become very similar since segregation. These differences don’t exist now, they go to the same schools by court order, same TV shows, same movies, basically same environment for both, and yet, that increasing similarity in the environment, the Flynn Effect, the IQ gap has remained intact. Which means whatever counts for the gap is genetic and not environmental. The more and more similar the environment, the less and less of the difference can be due to the environment and the more and more it must be due to genes. So this 15 point gap surviving these changes in the environment, seems more and more likely to be genetic in origin.

So because this ‘Effect’ is the same across all populations and the gap didn’t close, that means it’s genetic. If the gap persisted even when IQs were rising 3 points per year, the B-W gap has still persisted, proving that it’s genetic.

That is why the Flynn Effect is irrelevant. This “Effect”, has been a slight upward trend in IQ, around 3 points per decade, which, in my opinion, has to do with the advent of better nutrition and an industrialized society. The rise in IQ started around 1880, almost perfectly coinciding with the industrial revolution in America. Along with a more industrialized society, it’s possible to give most citizens in the country good enough nutrition to where they are not iodine deficient (adding iodine to our salt boosted Americans IQs), as well as being deficient in zinc, iron, protein and certain B vitamins which the effects of not getting enough leads to the brain not growing to its full potential, which in turn leads to a lower IQ.

It’s also worth noting that the Flynn Effect is, mostly just better nutrition. Rushton also stated that the Flynn Effect wasn’t on the g factor.

In conclusion, the “blank slate” hypothesis is complete rubbish. We need the truth to come out and come out soon as it has serious implications on policy and the direction that our country is headed due to programs like affirmative action and the like. They need to be ended now.

The Purpose of This Blog

500 words

The purpose of this blog is to unveil the lies that we are told every day. The lies we are told since we are children. I will be showing the truth, and then how the truth is lied about. Since we are lied to every day of our lives, when you say truths to people, they don’t believe you because they’ve been conditioned that what they see is their reality, what they’re told on the news is the actuality of the world without once thinking for themselves.

I will be talking about race (and all of the lies that go along with denying the actuality of race and the devastating consequences that will befall us if we don’t start to talk about the actuality of race), IQ, racial IQ differences, feminism, homosexuality, transgenderism and everything encompassing cultural Marxism and how it’s being used to subjugate our culture.

The lies we are told are monumentous. Here, I will be bringing to you nothing but the truth, as I only want the truth to get out. We have been lied to for too long in America. The lies will end soon, and a paradigm shift will occur before long as things happen in cycles.

I mainly will be talking about race and IQ, as they have very serious implications on how our society works. Shoehorning less capable blacks and Hispanics into areas that more capable whites and Asians, what do you think the implications will be on our country if we don’t see the actuality of race? Just the mention of race, especially racial IQ differences gets people uncomfortable. Maybe it’s because they don’t believe it at all, maybe it’s that they are given cognitive dissonance when given conflicting beliefs contrary to what they believe in. Whatever the case may be, the Left in America lies right to our faces every day.

All in all, cultural Marxism is slowly decaying our society. Ever since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, our country has been in a downward spiral. That, I believe, is the cause of it happening. In a truly free market, which is what The Founders wanted, everything is based on ability, not skin color, race, religion creed and so on. What we have now, is a system based on how “oppressed” the minority group in question was. You have blacks and Hispanics getting gifted points on the SAT while Asians get penalized. That’s ridiculous.

We should have it based on merit. A black person is capable of going to Harvard? Cool, you deserved it. A Hispanic can go to Yale? You earned it. But to do what’s being done now in our country is ridiculous. What kind of things could happen if we don’t fix our system?

I’ll leave that for you to think about.